If I had a bowl of Skittles and I told you three would kill you, would you take a handful?
Poll
 | 5 votes (17.85%) | ||
| | 16 votes (57.14%) | ||
| | 1 vote (3.57%) | ||
| | 5 votes (17.85%) | ||
| | 6 votes (21.42%) |
28 members have voted
Read more here.
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494700850/taste-the-outrage-donald-trump-jr-s-tweet-compares-refugees-to-skittles
Let's be precise. The actual text in the image was:Quote: 777Donald Trump Jr. tweeted an image of a bowl of Skittles, comparing Syrian refugees to poisoned candy. "If I had a bowl of Skittles and I told you three would kill you, would you take a handful?" the meme asks. "That's our Syrian refugee problem."
Read more here.
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494700850/taste-the-outrage-donald-trump-jr-s-tweet-compares-refugees-to-skittles
"If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful?"
There are three big problems with that. One is Skittles should be capitalized - it's a brand, and one that is now besmirched. Two is the first "sentence" is a sentence fragment. Three is "just three would kill you" can be interpreted as "if you eat just three, you'll die," so of course you'd never take a handful of more than three, you wouldn't take any at all. That's no different than saying "Here is a bowl of cyanide pills, just one will kill you, will you take a handful? That's just like refugees."
Aside from the sloppy grammar and (perhaps intentional) double meaning behind "just three would kill you," it is exceedingly ironic that the Trump campaign misappropriated that copyrighted photograph -- without compensation -- from an actual refugee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-skittle-photo-refugee_us_57dd8a1be4b08cb140962d4e?section=&
Second, the ratio is wrong. If we were talking about three / a handful / a day's production from the factory, the ratio would be more correct, but then...
Third, how do you know that there really are three killer candies in the bunch? This sounds a little like the Tylenol scare.
Bottom line, life's a crapshoot. You could avoid those candies your whole life, eat healthy, exercise, etc., and get hit by a bus.
In this analogy, the bus is a different kind of crazy. Or a killer Jelly Bean.
Quote: 777Donald Trump Jr. tweeted an image of a bowl of Skittles, comparing Syrian refugees to poisoned candy. "If I had a bowl of Skittles and I told you three would kill you, would you take a handful?" the meme asks. "That's our Syrian refugee problem."
Well, Sonny Boy is being a good little lackey. I wonder if he'll still be tweeting out of his ass once he finds out that the real estate empire he hopes to inherit has a negative net worth of $500 million.
Quote: RSThe analogy went straight over the anti-trumpers' heads. Either that, or they're doing whatever they can to put it down because deep down, they know it's truer than they'd like it to be.
Oh, horseshit, RS. Three poisonous Skittles in a bowl would be about 1% of the total. Please show me some data (REAL data, not the tripe you usually reference) that shows that a Syrian refugee has a 1% chance of killing someone.
I think the analogy was well understood by everyone, actually. Muslims are bloodthirsty killers. Yeah yeah yeah. What everybody is reacting to is not just how false and repulsive the analogy is, but also how stupid Baby Trump was to use it.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikOh, horseshit, RS. Three poisonous Skittles in a bowl would be about 1% of the total. Please show me some data (REAL data, not the tripe you usually reference) that shows that a Syrian refugee has a 1% chance of killing someone.
I think the analogy was well understood by everyone, actually. Muslims are bloodthirsty killers. Yeah yeah yeah. What everybody is reacting to is not just how false and repulsive the analogy is, but also how stupid Baby Trump was to use it.
Why does the % matter? Like I said, straight over your head. You're focusing on the wrong thing.
Quote: RSWhy does the % matter? Like I said, straight over your head. You're focusing on the wrong thing.
If it was "over my head," I wouldn't be discussing it at all, would I? Don't project your shameful ignorance onto others.
I will explain, being careful not to use big words, why the percentage matters. The actual risk of a Syrian refugee being a murderer is vanishingly small (as is the risk of ANY given person being a murderer--even if that person is a filthy Muslim!!!). Therefore, the "three in a bowl" analogy is overstated. A more accurate analogy would be that one single Skittle out of the millions produced MIGHT be poisonous.
Baby Trump was saying that there is a significant risk of a Syrian refugee killing someone. I asked you for data to support your agreement with that position. You didn't bother to try, because you have no such data. Your position is therefore baseless, as is that of Baby Trump.
I'm sorry to have confused you with the percentages concept. I won't try anything that complex with you in the future. The "right thing" to focus on is: is the risk of a Syrian refugee killing someone great enough to justify the use of the analogy? Again, I'll ask you to give us some actual, factual data about the real risk--not some xenophobic, Islamophobic vague feeling.
(And I fully expect you to dig up some internet story about a guy from Syria, somewhere, sometime recently, killing someone, which will of course totally support the contention: "See! They're all bloodthirsty killers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!")
Quote: DJTeddyBear
Second, the ratio is wrong. If we were talking about three / a handful / a day's production from the factory, the ratio would be more correct, but then...
Please explain that to RS for me.
Quote: WizardMath puzzle time! Let's assume there are 12 Skittles in a handful and 200 in a bowl. Three of the Skittles in the bowl will kill you. What is the probability that a random handful will kill you?
That's too easy. If Baby Trump told us they were poisonous, we could safely eat the entire bowl.
But just to clarify: do you have to eat just one or all three of the poisonous Skittles to die? if it just takes one, then you are taking twelve 3/200 chances...except that if you survive the first pick, your risk for the next grows slightly, now being 3 in 199...so I would imagine that your risk is 3/200+3/199+3/198...3/189. I'm sure there's a tidy way to express this in a formula.
So again, assuming just one is all it takes to kill you, my thumbnail guess would be that you are looking at about a 12/66, or 1 in 5.5, risk of Skittle death.
Does death require consuming all three poisoned ones or just one?Quote: WizardMath puzzle time! Let's assume there are 12 Skittles in a handful and 200 in a bowl. Three of the Skittles in the bowl will kill you. What is the probability that a random handful will kill you?
Quote: WizardMath puzzle time! Let's assume there are 12 Skittles in a handful and 200 in a bowl. Three of the Skittles in the bowl will kill you. What is the probability that a random handful will kill you?
= 1 - (197/200)(196/199)(195/198)... (186/189) = 1 - 0.8298 = 0.1702 = 17.02%
A more interesting question is what are fair odds for Donald Trump's son being able to this problem without assistance? His father? Hillary Clinton?
I hope Hillary has the lowest odds, but I wouldn't count on it. I'm sure they are all in the thousands or higher. Lol
Quote: MathExtremistDoes death require consuming all three poisoned ones or just one?Quote: WizardMath puzzle time! Let's assume there are 12 Skittles in a handful and 200 in a bowl. Three of the Skittles in the bowl will kill you. What is the probability that a random handful will kill you?
I assumed one in my answer. If it takes 3 terrorists to kill you, well they suck at their "job".
Quote: MathExtremistDoes death require consuming all three poisoned ones or just one?
Just one.
Quote: tringlomane= 1 - (197/200)(196/199)(195/198)... (186/189) = 1 - 0.8298 = 0.1702 = 17.02%
Correct! I owe you a beer.
Another representation of the answer is 1-combin(197,12)/combin(200,12).
Quote: JoeshlabotnikIf it was "over my head," I wouldn't be discussing it at all, would I?
I would say that discussing things that are over your head is your brand.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikDon't project your shameful ignorance onto others.
I will explain, being careful not to use big words, why the percentage matters.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI'm sorry to have confused you with the percentages concept. I won't try anything that complex with you in the future.
Maybe that's why you are exempted from the personal insults rule.
Quote: WizardCorrect! I owe you a beer.
Another representation of the answer is 1-combin(197,12)/combin(200,12).
That is the alternative writing, but Windows calculator wasn't happy with that method. ;) And maybe next trip you can join me at the new Tuscany's 365 Bar (365 represents the beers available...and a good amount "compable" ;)), I missed it recently due to schedule constraints. :(
Quote: tringlomaneThat is the alternative writing, but Windows calculator wasn't happy with that method. ;) And maybe next trip you can join me at the new Tuscany's 365 Bar (365 represents the beers available...and a good amount "compable" ;)), I missed it recently due to schedule constraints. :(
Off subject but I wish Tuscany well on this venture but that is a lot of beer to manage and keep fresh. Being off strip and a smaller property I'm not sure who their target is. With so many great local breweries and craft bars (Aces & Ales) I don't see them drawing locals. Nothing worse than an IPA that isn't fresh. Maybe the rare beers will draw some customers in but again the top bars all get the limited stuff already. I hope it works but I question the model.
Hmmm... roughly the same odds as Russian Roulette. Of course, with Russian Roulette, there is no satisfaction of enjoying the sweet and tangy goodness that is a handful of Skittles!Quote: tringlomane17.02%
Quote: tringlomaneAnd maybe next trip you can join me at the new Tuscany's 365 Bar (365 represents the beers available...and a good amount "compable" ;)), I missed it recently due to schedule constraints. :(
I went there recently and agree, it is a very good. The location is not very convenient for me though.
Quote: RigondeauxI would say that discussing things that are over your head is your brand.
Maybe that's why you are exempted from the personal insults rule.
He's not exempt. He's also not unique in posting rudeness and condescension, unfortunately. He's dancing on the edge of the line more than most, but less than a few.
Perfectly logical. Its okay to call all republicans scum but call any one of them that and you get put in timeout. I'm sure that makes sense to someone.
Then what's the right thing? The terrible grammar in the image?Quote: RSWhy does the % matter? Like I said, straight over your head. You're focusing on the wrong thing.
Do you actually know how many Syrian refugees have committed murder in the United States? Zero.
Absolutely zero.
You are statistically far more likely to be murdered by a native-born American than by a refugee, and I mean that on a per-capita basis.
http://www.cato.org/blog/syrian-refugees-dont-pose-serious-security-threat
Moreover, there is evidence that increased immigration and decreased crime are correlated. You read that right, immigrants are more peaceful and law-abiding than Americans who were born here. It's probably because they're grateful to be here instead of an actual war zone, and don't have an enormous entitlement problem.
http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-says
Quote:Roughly 1.6 percent of immigrant males 18-39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born. The disparity in incarceration rates has existed for decades, as evidenced by data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial census. In each of those years, the incarceration rates of the native-born were anywhere from two to five times higher than that of immigrants.
...
The weight of the evidence suggests that immigration is not associated with increased levels of crime. To the extent that a relationship does exist, research often finds a negative effect of immigration on levels of crime, in general, and on homicide in particular.
On a math-centric forum, you should not expect that the Trump campaign should get any leeway for blatantly misrepresenting statistics. The question is why so many of this forum's readers are falling for Trump's (and Trump Jr.'s) innumeracy? Why did you?
Quote: billryanYes, Somehow you are allowed to insult half the board members as a collective group but not an individual.
Perfectly logical. Its okay to call all republicans scum but call any one of them that and you get put in timeout. I'm sure that makes sense to someone.
It goes both ways. The posts that anger your "collective group" have the other side cheering, whichever side that is. Politics in 2016 in a nutshell.
Either we ban politics all together, and any mention of them in any thread, any reference, for any reason, or we discuss them in the manner we are right now, for the most part, because people aren't going to be thoughtful and disciplined in every phrase.
I can tell you, that if I started enforcing the implied insults to subgroups of members as you suggest, I would have to ban about 10 people for sure, and another dozen with a super-strict application, probably including myself. So I would probably close all the political threads before I wreaked such havoc on the forum.
Instead, I'm currently enforcing direct personal insults while allowing some characterizations to remain, in the interest of both free speech and unfettered discussion, within reason.
Other mods have their way of doing things, but there seems to be at least tacit agreement among us about this, as none of us has issued a suspension for group characterizations based on political stances. Remains to be seen whether that can hold until the election.
First things first.Quote: MathExtremistThen what's the right thing? <snip>
Do you actually know how many Syrian refugees have committed murder in the United States? Zero.
Absolutely zero.
You are statistically far more likely to be murdered by a native-born American than by a refugee, and I mean that on a per-capita basis.
<snip, big one>
Why did you?
I doubt if anyone knows whether or not a Syrian refugee has committed a 'murder' in the USA.
Absolute zero? We talking temperature or probabilities? Uncharacteristic for ME.
Now my favorite;
I suspect you are more likely to be murdered by a 'native-born American' than by a refugee.
I am told that all immigrants taste the same, like chicken.
'Why did I'? Hell, they told me is WAS chicken.
Yahte-heh...
Quote: TwoFeathersATLFirst things first.
I doubt if anyone knows whether or not a Syrian refugee has committed a 'murder' in the USA.
Absolute zero? We talking temperature or probabilities? Uncharacteristic for ME.
Now my favorite;
I suspect you are more likely to be murdered by a 'native-born American' than by a refugee.
I am told that all immigrants taste the same, like chicken.
'Why did I'? Hell, they told me is WAS chicken.
Yahte-heh...
I think we DO know who has committed murders in the US, because we have, y'know, police and stuff. One thing is true--if a Syrian refugee DID commit a murder, Trump tweets would fill the air like smoke from burning tires, and Breitbarf and Fox "News" would devote all their airtime to it for a solid week. So lacking such spew, I think we can conclude that there hasn't been such an incident. I know they're all sharpening their knives and muttering, "Death to the infidel," but so far, no actual murders.
And ME meant to say "absoluteLY zero," so yes, I have to take away a point for his using an adjective when he meant to use an adverb. Uncharacteristic of him to make such an error--he's an excellent writer.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt goes both ways. The posts that anger your "collective group" have the other side cheering, whichever side that is. Politics in 2016 in a nutshell.
I doubt that billyran would be clamoring for suspensions if I and others he objects to were saying those exact same things about Hillary. The wave of righteous indignation is motivated from a desire not to see the OO besmirched, mirroring Trump's own reaction to criticism, which is to pout, whine, and attack the person who uttered it.
I and others have been called "delusional," among many, many other things, by various users of this forum, for having this annoying obsession with facts and not viewing Trump as God's gift to the country or Hillary as a thieving witch. YET, I HAVE NOT CALLED FOR ANYONE'S SUSPENSION. That's because I always despised the kid who ran whining to the recess monitor, asking that another kid be punished for taking away his ball. I fight my own battles. ALSO, I believe that on a political forum thread, strong opinions are to be expected. I disagree completely with many of the posters here and elsewhere, but I absolutely do not say that they should be muzzled as a result.
Quote: MathExtremist
On a math-centric forum, you should not expect that the Trump campaign should get any leeway for blatantly misrepresenting statistics. The question is why so many of this forum's readers are falling for Trump's (and Trump Jr.'s) innumeracy? Why did you?
You don't really expect that an appeal to logic will have any effect on these people, do you? They'll believe what they want to believe, and any factual refutation of their arguments will just be viewed as an annoyance.
Syrian refugees are a mortal threat to humanity, and they are certain to create a tidal wave of bloodshed in any country they migrate to. Isn't that a much more appealing statement to a racist Islamophobe than your or my factual assertion that no Syrian refugee has committed a murder in this country?
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI doubt that billyran would be clamoring for suspensions if I and others he objects to were saying those exact same things about Hillary. The wave of righteous indignation is motivated from a desire not to see the OO besmirched, mirroring Trump's own reaction to criticism, which is to pout, whine, and attack the person who uttered it.
I and others have been called "delusional," among many, many other things, by various users of this forum, for having this annoying obsession with facts and not viewing Trump as God's gift to the country or Hillary as a thieving witch. YET, I HAVE NOT CALLED FOR ANYONE'S SUSPENSION. That's because I always despised the kid who ran whining to the recess monitor, asking that another kid be punished for taking away his ball. I fight my own battles. ALSO, I believe that on a political forum thread, strong opinions are to be expected. I disagree completely with many of the posters here and elsewhere, but I absolutely do not say that they should be muzzled as a result.
I don't get this at all. I asked you before for a single post I've ever made that lead you to think I'm a Trump supporter and you had nothing. I can point out dozens of posts that show I think Trump is a con man but this sad person has concluded I'm a Trump supporter. The fact that there is not one iota of evidence means nothing to him.
Oh wait. I did say I thought six weeks of voting was excessive. That must make me a knuckle dragging republican.
Quote: billryanI don't get this at all. I asked you before for a single post I've ever made that lead you to think I'm a Trump supporter and you had nothing. I can point out dozens of posts that show I think Trump is a con man but this sad person has concluded I'm a Trump supporter. The fact that there is not one iota of evidence means nothing to him.
Oh wait. I did say I thought six weeks of voting was excessive. That must make me a knuckle dragging republican.
Well, if you truly wouldn't be clamoring for my suspension if I was a Trump supporter, then I apologize. You would be showing a level of objectivity unprecedented for this forum. I guess we'll never really know.
I think you ought to drop the subject, though, as Babs has provided several detailed explanations of why and how her personal policy isn't what you evidently think it ought to be. I reiterate that calling for the suspension of other posters on a forum is silly and counterproductive--it just creates bad feeling and accomplishes nothing. If you don't want to read someone else's posts, the blocking feature is readily available and in fact, I've used it for EvenBob, AZDuffman, and others whose posts I would rather not read. I have not petitioned for their suspension, despite the fact that they add very little to most discussions. They, to put it succinctly, have a right to bloviate. As do I :)
Quote: CrystalMathWhat if we had a bowl containing two Skittles and I told you that only one of them is Trump?
Here are the answers:
It only takes one bad apple to spoil the bowl.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Like Trump, like trumper.
The other is John Miller.
The entire bowl is deplorable (or the remaining half of the basket is also deplorable).
The bowl is deplorable and full of racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.
Quote: MathExtremistDo you actually know how many Syrian refugees have committed murder in the United States? Zero.
Absolutely zero.
In Wizard's "Skittles question", 82.93% of the time, 0% of the skittles in the handful are deadly. Figuratively, we may be in that 82.93% right now. Or perhaps we're in the (figuratively) 17.93% right now, and the deadly skittle hasn't shown itself (yet).
Let's say we are in the (figuratively) 82.93% right now. What happens if you grab 12 more skittles (out of a remaining 188)? Goes from 17.93% to 32%. 12 more? And 12 more?
Granted, the refugees are screened and all that. But I don't think anyone here believes it's 100% perfect. If a no named tango wanted to get in, do you think he could?
I haven't gotten a DUI nor killed someone why driving drunk -- it's because I don't drink and drive -- it's not because "since it hasn't happened, it's not gonna happen, so I'll keep driving drunk" logic.
Quote: MathExtremistOn a math-centric forum, you should not expect that the Trump campaign should get any leeway for blatantly misrepresenting statistics. The question is why so many of this forum's readers are falling for Trump's (and Trump Jr.'s) innumeracy? Why did you?
Which statistics were misrepresented (regarding the Skittles thing)?
Quote: RS
I haven't gotten a DUI nor killed someone why driving drunk -- it's because I don't drink and drive -- it's not because "since it hasn't happened, it's not gonna happen, so I'll keep driving drunk" logic.
Yes, but the Trumper logic would be that we shouldn't let you drive because you MIGHT drink and drive--or we should not let you even near a car--or we should just kill you and be done with it.
The Skittles analogy is stupid precisely because it vastly overstates the risk. As ME pointed out, immigrants are LESS likely to commit violent crime than native-born Americans. You, my true-blue American neighbor, are twice as likely to kill me as that MOOOOOZLIM refugee who moved in across the street. And while the fact that there have been no incidents of Syrian refugee violent crime doesn't prove anything in and of itself. it also tends to suggest that the fear and paranoia may be misplaced.
So while we can't logically consider the risk zero, we CAN consider it negligible (assuming we're rational and use logic, not fear, to assess said risk). It sure as hell isn't 17%, which is why Baby Trump's little saying was asinine.
Quote: RSIn Wizard's "Skittles question", 82.93% of the time, 0% of the skittles in the handful are deadly. Figuratively, we may be in that 82.93% right now. Or perhaps we're in the (figuratively) 17.93% right now, and the deadly skittle hasn't shown itself (yet).
Let's say we are in the (figuratively) 82.93% right now. What happens if you grab 12 more skittles (out of a remaining 188)? Goes from 17.93% to 32%. 12 more? And 12 more?
Granted, the refugees are screened and all that. But I don't think anyone here believes it's 100% perfect. If a no named tango wanted to get in, do you think he could?
I haven't gotten a DUI nor killed someone why driving drunk -- it's because I don't drink and drive -- it's not because "since it hasn't happened, it's not gonna happen, so I'll keep driving drunk" logic.
Which statistics were misrepresented (regarding the Skittles thing)?
Of course the answer to Trump Jr’s deplorable and manipulative question is no. But it was a leading question to give trumpers the answers they want to hear.
For the sake of discussion, here are two examples of leading question for you to think about:
If you are a rapist, would anyone want to marry you? Of course the answer is NO. Do expect a “yes” answer from anyone?
If Trump killed RonC’s entire family, would RonC vote still for Trump? Of course the answer is an absolute NO. Do expect a “yes” answer from anyone or RonC?
You're kidding, right? Assume there are 200 Skittles in the bowl. "Just three" will kill you. Now assume there are about 8500 Syrian refugees in the United States. Based on public records, none of those have killed anyone.Quote: RSWhich statistics were misrepresented (regarding the Skittles thing)?
According to Donald Trump, Jr.'s tweet, 3/200 = 0/8500. Do you agree with that equivalence?
Stepping up one level, let's assume that the esteemed Mr. Trump did not actually mean "Syrian refugees" -- which is what he said -- but all immigrants generally. The statistics I posted earlier from the Cato Institute reflect research that has demonstrated that violent crime, and especially homicide, committed by immigrants is less prevalent than crimes committed by native-born Americans. Further, the incarceration rates (rates, not totals) among immigrants are less than half the rate of native-born Americans.
Mr. Trump used the phrase "will kill you" and said "that's our Syrian Refugee problem." Do you read that as a direct connection between Syrian refugees and murderers? If not, how else do you interpret that statement? If so, based on the statistics above, do you agree with Mr. Trump that the issue of Syrian refugees is an important factor in the murder rate in the United States?
Or, as is plainly evident, do you agree that he was misrepresenting the facts?
And do you also agree that the anti-immigration movement is highly hypocritical considering that every single one of its members was born into a family whose ancestors came to the United States no more than a handful of generations ago? Shortly after election day, regardless of who wins the Presidency, the U.S. will celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday. That holiday commemorates the time when honest, hard-working Americans provided food and shelter to undocumented immigrant refugees from Europe.
Some historical perspective would be in order.
Quote: gamerfreakSkittles have never been since same since they replaced lime with green apple.
Well, Baby Trump's remarks clearly show that his daddy is planning to buy the Skittles company and change the flavors so that one of them is "poisonous," so you'd probably prefer green apple to that.
I read Baby Trump's remarks as also signifying that one of the "extreme vetting" strategies contemplated by Trump is to make refugee immigrants ingest poison and see if they survive. Who says he doesn't have specific plans!!
Quote: MathExtremistYou're kidding, right? Assume there are 200 Skittles in the bowl. "Just three" will kill you. Now assume there are about 8500 Syrian refugees in the United States. Based on public records, none of those have killed anyone.
According to Donald Trump, Jr.'s tweet, 3/200 = 0/8500. Do you agree with that equivalence?
That's quite a stretch to "misrepresenting statistics". Actually, you are completely twisting around what was said.
Quote: RSQuote: MathExtremistYou're kidding, right? Assume there are 200 Skittles in the bowl. "Just three" will kill you. Now assume there are about 8500 Syrian refugees in the United States. Based on public records, none of those have killed anyone.
According to Donald Trump, Jr.'s tweet, 3/200 = 0/8500. Do you agree with that equivalence?
That's quite a stretch to "misrepresenting statistics". Actually, you are completely twisting around what was said.
He's not stretching at all. He's using logic, with some actual math thrown in. Do you have a problem with that simply because he utterly refutes what Baby Trump was implying?
What do YOU think it is that was said? Are you in the least bit objective about this? Does the simple fact that NO Syrian refugees have murdered anyone in the United States mean anything to you? Or are you so committed to Islamophobia and xenophobia that you'll simply refuse to consider anything that contradicts your position? Because ME spelled it out pretty simply and clearly for you.
Quote: MathExtremistSome historical perspective would be in order.
Some plain old perspective would be in order. Islamophobia is stupid. Being afraid of 8500 people because they're Islamic is stupid as well. Distorting one's perspective in order to maintain an attitude of hatred and xenophobia is stupid. Giving Baby Trump any credibility for his asinine, repulsive statement is stupid, Defending Trump's, Baby Trump's, and Trumpers' bigotry and hatred is stupid.
As far as history goes, though, every immigrant group has been reviled and painted as dangerous by those who arrived on the immediately preceding boat (no irony lost). We tribal apes don't like to acknowledge the existence of the "others," and sure as hell don't want them living next to us. So we haven't really learned anything, apparently, despite this being a nation of immigrants.
